Firstly I agree with Randy here. If you're not multi-homed then your routing policy can not be 'unique' from your single upstream. You may wish it was, but you have no way to enforce this.
Secondly, In considering this policy proposal in conjunction with prop-113, I am increasingly doubtful that there is anything for me to support here.
I suspect what is happening here is that these proposals (113 and 114) are conjoined and rather than significantly lowering the bar with regard to allocation of IPv4 resources, they seek removal of the bar altogether.
There are players within the community who will significantly benefit from a policy framework with a reduced multi-homing and demonstrated needs requirement, but those entities are not necessarily the end LIRs.
What these two proposals seek to do is remove all barriers to obtaining IPv4 addresses and ASNs.
One of the major problems here is that the authors seek to do this one 'cut' at a time. Almost in an attempt to avoid waking the tiger which is ARIN's requirement for needs based allocation, or having the APNIC community discussion around 'needs based' allocation for IPv4 resources.
I would like to see us stop the subterfuge here.
I would like to see both of these policies withdrawn and prop-116 "Removal of all barriers to allocation of IPv4 and ASN resources" put forward for debate. It is only in that way that the true ramifications/impacts of these smaller policies can be realised and discussed by the community.
Forcing us to debate this clause by clause is a waste of community time and effort.
I strongly oppose this policy as it is currently written.
Dean